A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. SPUC has been a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia since then. I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work.

Wednesday, 29 August 2012

SPUC defends Northern Ireland politician over abortion controversy
SPUC has defended Jim Wells, a Northern Ireland politician, over his opposition to abortion in all circumstances, including after rape. In a letter to The Belfast Telegraph, Liam Gibson's SPUC's Northern Ireland developement officer, wrote: "Attacks on Jim Wells MLA for defending unborn children ignore the reality of abortion ... Rape is traumatic, but to argue that aborting a child conceived through rape undoes that trauma ignores that abortion, too, is an act of violence. Of 200,000 babies aborted in Britain annually, less than 1% are conceived through rape ... Today, Spuc is proud to work with Jim Wells and other politicians who believe a child's right to exist does not depend on the circumstances of his, or her, conception. [Belfast Telegraph, 29 August]

A leading scientist has demolished claims by a prominent eugenicist for genetic screening. Dr James Sherley, a American biological engineer, was commenting on claims by Dr Julian Savulescu that parents should use genetic screening of human embryos to select personality traits. Dr Sherley, in comments to LifeSiteNews.com, said: “Our understanding of the contribution of the human genome to human psychology is not nearly advanced enough to make such a claim", adding "only fools and egoists would profess that they know better than Nature which traits are ‘positive’". [LifeSiteNews.com, 23 August]

SPUC Pro-Life offers its condolences on the death of Tony Nicklinson
SPUC Pro-Life, which was officially represented in the Debbie Purdy and Diane Pretty cases, has offered its condolences to the loved ones of Tony Nicklinson, who has died. Mr Nicklinson, who had 'locked-in' syndrome, last week lost his High Court bid for permission for euthanasia. Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, commented: "We offer our condolences to Mr Nicklinson’s family and friends. We note reports that his death was peaceful and while surrounded by his loved ones." [SPUC, 22 August]

The story manages to:
a) smear SPUC as an ‘anti-LGBT group’
b) ignore all written materials SPUC has put out on the subject (all available at www.spuc.org.uk - an address given in the flyer)
c) grossly misrepresent the contents of the flyer itself.

Basic journalistic good practice could, of course, have avoided all these faults. SPUC was not consulted about the article or asked to comment on the false claims made. SPUC has contacted Pink News six times (four times by telephone and twice by email) since the article went online but has received no reply or acknowledgement of any kind.

As Pink News in general, and journalist Christopher Brocklebank in particular, have failed their readership so dismally, it is left to us to correct them.

Re a) above:Pink News labels SPUC “a pro-life and anti-LGBT group”. This is half-correct and half-smear. We defend the right to life, and we defend marriage, opposing its mooted redefinition as a genderless institution. The campaign, and the organisation itself, are not ‘anti-LGBT’; they are simply ‘pro-marriage’. Presumably Pink News regards homosexuals such as Brian Sewell and Christopher Biggins as ‘anti-LGBT’ for their opposition to same-sex marriage? Perhaps Stonewall’s lengthy silence on same-sex marriage and chief executive Ben Summerskill’s airing of fears of the exorbitant cost of changes to legislation (£5bn) qualify them as formerly anti-LGBT?

Re b) above:
SPUC’s materials, ignored by Brocklebank yet locatable at our website within seconds, can be found here:

“SPUC’s claim that same-sex marriages – if legalised – were more likely to lead to the abortion of unborn babies within those very marriages was not fully explained.”

It is true that this was not “fully explained” - not least because no such claim was ever made! The flyer states the following:

"We must protect real marriage because it protects children in the womb. Statistics show that unborn babies are four to five times more likely to be aborted outside of real marriage.”

In the hands of Brocklebank our statement is transformed into a claim about abortions ‘within’ same-sex marriages - as opposed to our concern at the harmful impact on future children of removing natural conception universally from the idea of marriage. Thus does Pink News set up a straw man for its readers. It’s a shame that the paper has such contempt for its gay readership.

Smears and outright misrepresentations - whether from Pink News, or from commentators who effectively support them - will not deter SPUC from this campaign: a campaign that puts the child at the centre of our concerns, not the sexual ‘rights’ of adults.

As Patrick Riley reminds us in his book 'Civilizing Sex':

“The very act of marrying implies children as the purpose and perfection of the state created by the act...Therefore man and wife ‘by themselves’ constitute a family, since in reality, if only in potency, there is no such thing as man and wife by themselves. When you say husband, you say father; when you say wife, mother.”

Thursday, 23 August 2012

I am delighted to read in L'Osservatore Romano, a leading article, published yesterday, praising Cardinal O'Brien's and the Scottish bishops' fearless defence of families.

It describes the Cardinal's decision to suspend direct communication with the government of Scotland in protest against its support of the introduction of same-sex "marriage" as "eloquent and effective" action. L'Osservatore Romano states:

"A symbolic action, but one that is eloquent and effective. Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Archbishop of Edinburgh and President of the Bishops' Conference of Scotland, has suspended direct communication with the government of Scotland in protest of its support of the introduction of same-sex unions to the country. The Cardinal refused to discuss the issue, leaving any future meetings to officials.

"The Scottish government has decided to modify the law in force, despite the fact that public opinion seems to believe the reform to be unnecessary. Nevertheless the government has been working towards the law this year and has indicated that the first same-sex ceremonies could happen as early as 2015. Regarding the proposal of the legalization of homosexual marriage in England and Wales, Cardinal O'Brien once more raises his voice in defence of civil society. His stance is not Catholic but simply one of a civil nature. The Cardinal upholds reason and common sense.

"This month the Scottish government began considering same-sex unions, asking the public if same-sex marriage should be introduced in England and Wales. The Cardinal said that he hopes that many people will respond and reflect on the possibility of signing the petition supporting traditional marriage."

Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn.
Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than
outside marriage. For more information see SPUC's position paper and background paper on same-sex marriage. Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage.
Like Cardinal O'Brien, let's not be intimidated by charges of
'homophobia' as we seek to uphold the institution of marriage, which is
the faithful lifelong union between one man and one woman, which is the
foundation of the family and the fundamental group-unit of society.

Wednesday, 22 August 2012

SPUC Pro-Life, which was officially represented in the Debbie Purdy and Diane Pretty cases, has offered its condolences to the loved ones of Tony Nicklinson, who died today. Mr Nicklinson, who had 'locked-in' syndrome, last week lost his High Court bid for permission for euthanasia.

Please see below a press release and a message from the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Scotland. The Scottish bishops are giants in defence of marriage. In particular, Cardinal O'Brien is a shepherd of the flock who is taking care, not only of the families in his archdiocese and in Scotland, but also of countless thousands of families who are thrilled to hear his voice and experience his leadership throughout Britain and Ireland.

We must respond to that leadership. Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage. Like Cardinal O'Brien, let's not be intimidated by charges of 'homophobia' as we seek to uphold the institution of marriage, which is the faithful lifelong union between one man and one woman, which is the foundation of the family and the fundamental group-unit of society.

Cardinal O'Brien calls on politicians to "sustain rather than subvert Marriage"

The Catholic Church in Scotland will inaugurate "National Marriage Sunday" on Sunday 26 August 2012. In a Pastoral Letter to be read out in all of Scotland's 500 Catholic parishes, the Bishops' of Scotland will

"place a special emphasis on the role of the family founded on marriage"

and stress that

"marriage is a unique lifelong union of a man and a woman".

In a strongly worded message, the Bishops will restate, their

"deep disappointment that the Scottish Government has decided to redefine marriage and legislate for same sex marriage".

As well as thanking parishioners for their past support in defence of marriage, the message will urge them to

"continue to act against efforts to redefine it".

Endorsing the initiative Cardinal Keith O'Brien, President of the Bishops' Conference of Scotland said:

"The Church's teaching on marriage is unequivocal, it is uniquely, the union of a man and a woman and it is wrong that Governments, politicians or Parliaments should seek to alter or destroy that reality."

Cardinal O'Brien added:

"With this letter we will announce the creation of a National Commission for Marriage and the Family, a body which will be charged with promoting the true nature of marriage, it will develop an online prescence and produce materials and organise events which will help Catholic families to support and sustain marriage.

While we pray that our elected leaders will sustain rather than subvert marriage, we promise to continue to do everything we can to convince them that redefining marriage would be wrong for society".

A Message for Marriage Sunday, 26 August 2012, from the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland:

"In all things, we as Catholics look to Jesus Christ as our model and teacher. When asked about marriage He gave a profound and rich reply: “Have you not read that the Creator, from the beginning, ‘made them male and female’, and said: ‘This is why a man must leave father and mother and cling to his wife and the two become one body’.” (Matthew, 19: 4-5) In the Year of Faith, which begins this October, we wish to place a special emphasis on the role of the family founded on marriage. The family is the domestic Church, and the first place in which the faith is transmitted. For that reason it must have a primary focus in our prayerful considerations during this period of grace.

We write to you having already expressed our deep disappointment that the Scottish Government has decided to redefine marriage and legislate for same-sex marriage. We take this opportunity to thank you for your past support in defense of marriage and hope you will continue to act against efforts to redefine it. We reaffirm before you all the common wisdom of humanity and the revealed faith of the Church that marriage is a unique life-long union of a man and a woman.

In circumstances when the true nature of marriage is being obscured, we wish to affirm and celebrate the truth and beauty of the Sacrament of Matrimony and family life as Jesus revealed it; to do something new to support marriage and family life in the Catholic community and in the country; and to reinforce the vocation of marriage and the pastoral care of families which takes in the everyday life of the Church in dioceses and parishes across the country.

For that reason, in the forthcoming Year of Faith we have decided to establish a new Commission for Marriage and the Family. This Commission will be led by a bishop and will be composed mostly of lay men and women. The Commission will be charged with engaging with those young men and women who will be future husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, and with those who already live out their vocation to marriage and parenthood in surroundings which often make it hard to sustain and develop the full Catholic family life we cherish.

We wish to support too, those who are widowed, separated and divorced and all who need to feel the Church’s maternal care in the circumstances in which they find themselves. The new Commission will promote the true nature of marriage as both a human institution and a union blessed by Jesus. The Commission will be asked to develop an online presence so that prayer, reflection, formation and practical information on matters to do with marriage and family life can be quickly accessible to all. It will also work to produce materials and organise events which will support ordinary Catholic families in their daily lives. During the course of the coming year we will ask for your support for these initiatives.

Our faith teaches us that marriage is a great and holy mystery. The Bishops of Scotland will continue to promote and uphold the universally accepted definition of marriage as the union solely of a man and a woman. At the same time, we wish to work positively for the strengthening of marriage within the Church and within our society.

This is an important initiative for all our people, but especially our young people and children. We urge you to join us in this endeavour. Pray for your own family every day, and pray for those families whose lives are made difficult by the problems and cares which they encounter. Finally, we invite you to pray for our elected leaders, invoking the Holy Spirit on them, that they may be moved to safeguard marriage as it has always been understood, for the good of Scotland and of our society."

Tuesday, 21 August 2012

Cardinal breaks off relations with Scottish first minister over gay marriage
Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, has broken off relation with Alex Salmond, the Scottish first minister, over the Scottish government's approach to same-sex marriage. The cardinal has insisted that all future discussions between the church and the government be conducted by officials instead. [Express, 20 August] Cardinal O'Brien has been the UK's most outspoken religious leader against same-sex marriage. John Smeaton, SPUC director, commented: "Cardinal O'Brien's recent announcement breaking off dialogue with senior Scottish politicians is a sign of how grave the situation is. When politicians give the impression that they are listening, but continue pursuing the opposite objectives (in this case, the abolition of legal recognition for real marriage, replacing it with a counterfeit) firm action is needed."

Friday, 17 August 2012

Dr Sardella is one of the bravest men I've had the privilege to meet and it's my pleasure to introduce him now to my readers - a man who, together with his wife, has risked his future because of his respect for human life.

Dr. Thomas Sardella obtained his Master in Research in Biological Sciences in Rome University – Tor Vergata
– with summa cum laude following a 5-year course. The subjects he studied included zoology, botany, molecular biology, biochemistry, embryology, genetics, anatomy, physiology, cytology and histology, and ecology. He then successfully completed a Ph.D. course in the Faculty of Biomedical and Life sciences in a leading British university carrying out scientific research on spinal cord regeneration and transplantation of adult cells in animal models. He was then employed as a research assistant in the same university and went on deepening his understanding of pain and its transmission through the central nervous system.

I met with Thomas in one of my trips north. We had lunch together in an Italian restaurant next to Edinburgh Haymarket station where we ate a delicious pasta all’ amatriciana!

Fortunately, I have a note of our discussion - which now follows:

JS: Thomas, tell me about the adventure which led you to put your entire future in jeopardy?TS: John, as you probably know, funding research is not considered a priority in the present critical financial situation. Year after year it is becoming harder and harder to secure money for scientific research, so my work contract in the university in which I was working was to end on the 31st of December 2011 due to limitation of funding. My boss is a leading researcher in his field and we were hoping to find a grant to pay my research and salary to support my family, while we were waiting for a larger five year grant. Finally, a small funding opportunity arose at the end of September 2011. This was supposed to keep me going for the first six months of 2012 and consisted in a collaboration with a research group in San Diego (USA).

JS: What did the research involve?TS: The research group led by Dr. M. in San Diego would take tissue from an unborn child immediately after an induced abortion. This was carried out around the 8th week of gestation and then the American team would culture the tissue from the embryo in the appropriate conditions. The cells would then be transplanted in the central nervous system in animal models. Slices from these transplanted animals were to be sent to my group in Britain where I was to analyse them. This collaboration was necessary as my group has renowned knowledge and skills.

As you can notice I was not going to be directly involved in the abortion, but how could I have looked through the microscope forgetting that those cells were taken away from the child together with his/her life?

JS: Why as a scientist do you think it was wrong?TS: The same question was put to me by a student in the John Paul Academy secondary school during a talk I gave some time ago.

My answer is surprisingly simple! If we agree that it is wrong to kill a human being, a member of the homo sapiens species, then we need to ask ourselves when do we become homo sapiens? For every organism of the animal kingdom it is the same answer: when a sperm cell fertilises the egg of the same species, any zoologist or embryologist will affirm that a new organism is conceived. When a human egg is fertilised by a human sperm cell there is nothing we can do to stop the new embryo from being part of our species. The new individual must be considered a human being.

Based on this knowledge, who can deprive this young human being of his/her right to live? Who can assign to the stages of embryonic development a moment when he/she holds human being’s rights? Who can arbitrarily choose a date when he/she acquires this right so that before this he/she can be legally killed?

JS: What was your first reaction when you found out about this research?TS: I still remember when I read the email sent from San Diego about the requirement of human abortion in this collaboration: I leaned back on my chair with a feeling of repulsion and told myself I could not and would not do this. How could I convince myself that those 8 weeks old human beings did not have the right to live, and my career, my salary and my family were more important than their lives?

So I decided to lose my job.

JS: If it was not you killing those embryos and if the mother chose willingly to abort her baby, why did you feel that way?TS: That same evening my wife, who has studied bioethics, confirmed that my stand was correct. We consulted Italian bioethics’ textbooks that asserted that I would have become a passive and remote collaborator of the abortion procedure: that is why I could not stop feeling so bad.

Not to be considered a collaborator in the abortion a scientist should be completely independent from it, and it is impossible for two reasons: firstly, before the abortion takes place the mother gives her consent for her aborted child to be used; as a consequence, all those involved in the research programme become co-responsible with her decision. You may not see it, but I personally know mothers who had IVF that gave their surplus embryos for research and were proud to make the world a better place because their “sacrificed” children were somehow useful to science. Secondly, for the researcher it is impossible to make it clear to everyone in his field that he does not approve of induced abortion. Last but not least, the most important aspect of research is to contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge by publishing in scientific journals. If my research had been successful, then how could I have carried the burden of promoting the use of cells from the unborn victims of induced abortions?

JS: When did you make your choice official to your team?TS: That same night, looking for comfort and guidance, I spoke on the phone to our parish priest, Father John Keenan, who confirmed my view and encouraged me, and the decision was officially taken in my heart.

The following day, I told my boss I needed a few minutes to chat together. When I told him, he was surprised human embryos were involved as he had not noticed himself. So we went through the methodology together and confirmed that was the case. He asked me if I wanted him to continue the paperwork for the job or if I preferred to be without a job. I said I could not carry out such research even if it meant becoming jobless from the 1st of Jan. End of story!

JS: Did you ever doubt you made the right choice?TS: In the days that followed I questioned myself whether I had taken the right choice or not. The answer was straightforward as I pictured myself in two different lives, two different “mes”: the first "me", coming back home from work and playing with my child thinking: “The child that I am using for my every day research work could have been playing right now with his parents, just like my son is”. The second "me", stressed without a job, but with a clean conscience.

Thomas and wife Eleonora

JS: Once you told everyone, what did your family and friends say?TS: Not everyone agreed and I did much talking to get my message through. My parents and parents in law and many friends supported us in this choice and included us in their daily prayers. I was surprised to see how many wrote to us and spoke to us with words of encouragement and pride. At the same time I was surprised to see how many friends thought that choices in life are never black or white but there are always shades of grey, and some insisted that I should have chosen grey for the sake of my family. It is a pity that when we become adults we start believing that white does not exist or it is simply utopia!

JS: Is this the reason why you have been giving talks in schools about your choice and about abortion? Tell me more about that.TS: Yes, I visited some schools in collaboration with the religious education department.

Once I made this choice that changed the course of my family’s life, I browsed the internet to find out more about abortion. I was shocked when I found out that it is so common in today’s society. The idea that in the western world one out of three to five women in a life-time will choose to abort is beyond imagination. Not even the worst dictator of the 20th century could have thought of something so mean and well organised! And these figures do not include multiple abortions, abortions resulting from IVF and from the morning-after pill. I felt in my heart I had to inform young people scientifically to show the difference between truth and falsehood.

JS: Why do you think so many women choose abortion today?TS: In my view this is because today’s society de-responsibilizes women and their actions in two ways: firstly, abortion is promoted by separating the connection between sex and reproduction, and by promoting a culture of egoistic relativism where each one is to please his/her own needs and pleasure. Have you ever come across young kids who are surprised to find out they are expecting a baby, as if sex did not involve conception or contraceptive methods were 100% efficient? Secondly, termination of embryonic human life is promoted by not informing women about what is a pregnancy, when life begins, what are the alternatives.

Once mothers feel de-responsibilized, then most of the load falls on all members of society who don’t do anything about it, including me.

Therefore, I felt the urge to make myself useful; informing schoolgirls and boys about the main issues involved in abortion and also research on tissue derived from the “wanted” death of an "unwanted" child. You should have seen the faces of these kids in different schools! They truly had no idea about what abortion was and how it was carried out.

What particularly touched my heart was the expression of shock and surprise on the boy’s faces: probably when they were thinking about sex they thought it just a game; probably no one had ever been so clear with them showing diagrams of the female reproductive system and describing in detail when life started and how it could be ended piece by piece in the abortion procedure; probably they understood that abortion involved them much more than what they had thought before.

Some pupils also came to me and told me their opinion about abortion had completely changed so I told myself “if I have lost my job just to save one life then it was worth it!”

JS: Have you found an ethical job to support your family?TS: I will tell you the story but please do not laugh!

At the end of 2011 I registered in my university’s roll for job-seekers, because internal staff members have priority over outsiders. As I fitted in very well with a job profile that was needed in my same department, I was verbally offered a three-year contract starting on the 1st January, but believe it or not I had to turn down this offer, as this research also involved the use of tissue obtained from the unborn victims of induced abortion! This research was the result of a collaboration with a group in Australia who collected the foetuses at the gestation time of 10-13 weeks and carried out electrophysiological experiments on their spinal cord, then sent us spinal cord slices to be analysed under the microscope. The person who I was supposed to work with was a very close colleague of mine for seven years; I told him I was saddened by this as I did not realise he carried out such type of research, and he told me: “This is science, someone has to do it!” His answer made me extremely angry!

JS: Why were you surprised by his reaction and point of view?TS: He and many others in our society consider science a superior entity and motor immobilis guiding mankind’s decisions. He refused to consider that science is only a word, from the Latin scientia meaning knowledge. Knowledge does not possess a conscience. It is the scientist who has a conscience and an ethics that guides his thoughts and decisions. Not every doable thing has to be done. First comes life, and then secondarily comes the improvement to it. It is inadmissible to consider a human life expendable and to use it in research programs for the hypothetical improvement of other people’s lives. I am a scientist and for the first time I felt disgusted by how unwisely my colleagues use the power of knowledge.

Furthermore, a human life at its embryonic stage is too young to be able to choose. Instead of protecting this life in a very special way, society prefers to use it for its own interests. That is why I am still angry!

JS: Please Thomas, give me a happy ending for SPUC readers!TS: The funniest part is that I was then invited for an interview for a very interesting job in a private foundation in Palermo, Sicily, where I was supposed to carry out research on foetuses aborted in the second trimester due to malformations: what they call in Italy “therapeutic abortion”. Speaking on the phone to one of the members of the interview panel, I said that in my view a therapy should not involve the intentional suppression of the patient as that does not cure the patient. She listened and laughed quietly and agreed and I turned down the invitation to the interview.

I then was unable to apply to a number of other jobs in Britain and abroad as these clearly stated the use of human embryonic stem cells or tissue from aborted embryos. I was shocked by the number of them! Maybe it is due to the financial crisis? Maybe more mothers agree for their children to be used for research? I do not know, but I can tell you that seven years ago neither I nor any of my friends had come across this type of research.

Finally, I have had some “ethically-friendly” job offers in Britain, in my same University and abroad and I chose the best offer, so I will soon leave Great Britain for good with my expecting wife and three years old child!

JS: So finally a happy ending!TS: More than you can imagine...more than we could imagine!

A simple choice became a review of my life and beliefs, a moment of true unity with my wife and family.

I must admit it was not easy to push our lives to the edge in this time of economical crisis. In 2012 I have already lost £20,000 of salary plus pension benefits I would have been granted if I had chosen differently. It is so easy to take the wrong decision and chose grey when you are short of money! My wife and I are alive because in our families so many women were strong, notwithstanding everything, and they gave life to their children: we could not do less than that to thank their faith and strength.

Looking back my choice looks so right: it brought only blessings to our lives! I had to stop my crazy routine and you have no idea how important it is in our society to have a completely white page in front of you and feel the freedom to fill it out. Keep in mind I could have just spent my time waiting for the five year grant with my old boss, but this choice forced me to open my eyes and look for true happiness in my life as a husband, a father and a scientist.

I thank God for this challenge because I could choose the best for my life, career and children.

Once again I learned that if you choose white, even if this seems irrational at that moment, even if the mountain you have to climb looks so high, you are simply opening your arms to so much more happiness than you could have ever planned.

“We welcome the High Court’s ruling, and we question whether those who have encouraged Mr Nicklinson and 'Martin' to pursue this legal action have the best interests of disabled people at heart. The court has reiterated once again that direct, active, voluntary euthanasia is unlawful in English and European law. To have allowed euthanasia would have seriously undermined both the laws against homicide and the right to life enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights. Those who are sick, vulnerable or disabled need the law to be robust in protecting the inviolability of every human life. That is why SPUC Pro-Life was officially represented before the courts in the Debbie Purdy and Diane Pretty cases. Compassion and solidarity are the humane and caring responses to ‘locked-in’ syndrome. To legalise killing of those who are suffering would adversely affect many, many people. We believe that Mr Nicklinson and ‘Martin’ have lives of equal value to any other member of society. We urge those around them to rise to the challenge of helping them realise their value and overcome their sense of hopelessness.

We trust that today’s judgment will help end the insidious campaign in the British courts to change the law on assisted suicide and euthanasia. SPUC Pro-Life will be making further comments on the High Court’s ruling as soon as the details are available."

Below is a letter which I and many other pro-life/pro-family leaders worldwide have signed, protesting against the participation of the US embassy in Prague in that city's 'gay pride' parade. The letter was initiated by the World Congress of Families.

"We the undersigned pro-family and pro-life leaders vigorously protest the participation of the United States Embassy in the Czech Republic in a so-called gay-pride parade which will take place on August 18.

As representatives of the international pro-family movement, we note the following:

At the directive of the president of the United States, Washington is aggressively promoting the “gay’’ agenda internationally, including same-sex “marriage” and the stigmatization and marginalization of any who object to the same.

The Obama’s administration’s embrace of “same-sex marriage” has been overwhelmingly rejected by the American people. There have been 32 state referenda on marriage. In every one of them, voters endorsed the natural definition of marriage (a man and a woman). The North Carolina vote, on May 8, was 61% in favor of natural marriage.

The United Nations has never affirmed homosexual “marriage” or rights.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948) provides that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”

Article 16, Section 3 of the Declaration further defines the family as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society” which is “entitled to protection by society and the State.”

It stands to reason, then, that anything which undermines the family – including changing the definition of marriage – is a breach of the State’s responsibility to protect this indispensable institution which precedes government and makes a stable and free society possible.

The Madrid Declaration of World Congress of Families VI (May 25-27, 2012) -- which was unanimously adopted by more than 3,200 delegates from 72 countries -- provides, in part: “We affirm the natural family to be the union of a man and a woman through marriage for the purposes of sharing love and joy, propagating children, providing their moral education, building a vital home economy, offering security in times of trouble, and binding the generations.”

Regarding “gay rights,” those caught up in this lifestyle have the same rights as other citizens. This does not include the “right” to force others to validate a lifestyle they find objectionable, for religious or other reasons. It also does not include the right of men to marry men and women to marry women.

The foregoing pseudo-rights do not advance human freedom and dignity but debase them.

We can not imagine a worse form of cultural imperialism than Washington trying to force approval of the “gay” agenda on societies with traditional values.

Finally, we commend Michael Semin, chairman of Akce Dost (Action ENOUGH), and other Czech pro-life and pro-family leaders for their stalwart defense of the natural family."

In a time when politicians get criticised for following the party line without question, I was very pleased that some members of Fine Gael stood up recently and said they were not going to accept abortion.

I'm referring to this month's meeting of the Fine Gael parliamentary party when a number of Fine Gael representatives challenged the Minister for Health and vowed to vote against abortion legislation.

I was especially glad to see Mayo Fine Gael TD John O'Mahony listed among those who spoke up on this issue.

Based on his defense of the unborn so far I would have no difficulty either voting for him or asking others to vote for him in a future election.

While it seems that Ireland remains an overwhelmingly pro-life country, according to consistent Millward Brown Lansdowne opinion polling, there does seem to be bias among the national media that favours legislating for abortion.

Over 79 per cent of people in Mayo want Fine Gael to keep their pre-election promise. That is considerably more than the 65 per cent that voted for Fine Gael in the last election.

In the same election the pro-abortion Labour party got less than five per cent of the vote. Clearly the people of Mayo support women who are pregnant and they want to see the law reflect this.

I was shocked to see that some member of the Labour party were critical of the Fine Gael TDs and senators. The fact that the Fine Gael party made a pro-life commitment to [T]he [P]ro[-L]ife [C]ampaign prior to the general election is laudable and the fact the Fine Gael deputies feel that they should honour their promise is something Fine Gael should be proud of.

The many arguments that are presented for abortion in Ireland, that it is available in Britain, that is necessary to save the life of pregnant mothers, etc., are all shallow and easily refuted. Women in Ireland receive all necessary medical treatment, even if it indirectly results in the death of the unborn child. This is not abortion because it is not a deliberate attack on the unborn child.

It continues to be a tragedy that Irish women travel for abortions and it's a scandal that women do so because they do not feel they have adequate supports in Ireland.

I hope our politicians will continue to see the need to offer women more and better support services when they are faced with a crisis pregnancy.

Without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless. I congratulate the Fine Gael deputies on their stance and hope that the rest of the Fine Gael party follows suit.

In February this year a judge in the Scottish Court of Session said that the midwives, Mary Doogan and Connie Wood, had to accept management instructions to oversee abortions performed by other midwives on the labour ward.

The midwives had argued that they had never been required to supervise abortion procedures in the past, and that the hospital was asking them to be morally, medically and legally responsible for abortions. They argued that this conflicted with their profound objection to abortions and with the right to opt-out that is protected in the 1967 Abortion Act.

SPUC has underwritten the midwives' legal costs. People wishing to make donations towards the midwives' legal costs should telephone SPUC on 020 7091 7091.

Sunday, 12 August 2012

Pat Buckley, SPUC's man in the Republic of Ireland, keeps the pro-life world up-to-date with the abortion debate in Ireland, via his blog. There has never been a more crucial time for Ireland, with the prospect of abortion legislation being introduced into the Irish parliament. Here are Pat's recent blogs about the situation in Ireland:

Saturday, 11 August 2012

Between 19 May and 21 July, Reverend Arthur Woood, a member of the SPUC Evangelicals committee, led a nationwide campaign to take the pro-life message to the heart of the Olympic games. SPUC supporters handed out a specially-designed leaflet and held specially-designed placards at the Olympic torch relay in 12 cities in England, Scotland and Wales. Arthur has kindly sent me the following report:

Plymouth, 19 May:
The ones who seemed to be most curious were teenagers, particularly girls. We had some great conversations and I am sure that many of these young people were positively impacted by the information we gave them. Some even wanted to have their photographs taken holding the placards. We did come across a few people who didn’t like what we were doing, but the vast majority who spoke to us were supportive, some even thanking us for standing up for unborn children.

Swansea, 25 May:
Some of us, unknowingly, ended up distributing leaflets outside a small hospital that regularly performs abortions. It was at this location that one lady with a child began to shout, scream and swear at one of the ladies in the team and tore the bundle of leaflets from her hand and threw them in the road. This reminded us very clearly of the spiritual battle we are in. Remarkably a policeman helped to pick up the leaflets. We managed to give out in the region of 1,500 leaflets over the two hours or so. At our debriefing at the end, everyone who took part said how much they had enjoyed the day and how much they felt motivated by being involved.

Chester, 29 May:
We managed to distribute in the region of 3,500. The whole day went without hitch and without opposition. Two young people were so moved by what they read in the leaflets that they offered to help us to distribute them.

Stoke, 30 May:
What really stood out to me was the way people readily took the leaflets, with just a small percentage refusing them. Joshua the young Baptist minister decided to venture into the park and remarkably distributed about 1,000 leaflets on his own in the two hours or so that we he was there. In all we managed to give out about 4,000 leaflets and had some very positive conversations.

Aberdeen, 11 June:
We had many positive conversations. In all we managed to hand out in the region of 2500 leaflets which, in view of the restrictions, was excellent. A young lady swore at us, spat at us and shouted at us. She told us that she had had an abortion, and said that she was "pro-choice" and "pro-death". We met her again later and to our amazement were able to have a friendly chat with her. She was hurting badly from her abortion experience and we have felt compelled to pray for her ever since we met her.

Dundee, 12 June:
We would like to give our thanks to Marysia and the rest of the Dundee team for their stalwart efforts which resulted in the distribution of about 2,300 leaflets despite all the restrictions and the rain. It was very encouraging to have two young ladies in our team who were a great help to us.

Dundee

Manchester, 23 June:
Aileen had a brilliant conversation with a young couple who claimed to be pagans, but are strongly against abortion. Aileen recalls that: 'The young lady recounted how she had accompanied a friend to an abortion clinic, and whilst sitting in the waiting room, had become more and more sickened by the numerous women who were there seeking a second or third abortion. For this reason she told me, she was happy to accept the leaflet. On asking the whereabouts of the place, it turned out to be the Hazel Grove clinic, where there is a Saturday morning vigil and where there will be a 40 Days for Life campaign in September.'

Birmingham, 30 June:
Many in the team were young people, students etc. We had very few negative responses to what we were doing in fact many people thanked us. A high proportion of the people who were offered leaflets took one, some stopping to discuss the issue of abortion. A senior police officer went to nearly everyone carrying a placard asking them if they were OK and sharing with some of them that he admired them for what they were doing and agreed with the stance we were making.

Peterborough, 3 July:
The carnival atmosphere was electrifying and great to be a part of. In all in a matter of about just one and a half hours we distributed in the region of 2,300 leaflets. Here as with many other cities the benefits of having a local SPUC branch was obvious. A ready-made team of enthusiastic and passionate pro-lifers made it a joy to work with them.

Peterborough

Cambridge, 7 July:
Quite a few people thanked us for what we were doing. One of the ladies in our team had a conversation with an elderly lady who said that she had had an abortion many years previously. She said that she regretted what she had done and still carried around the burden of it every day. This gave our lady team member the opportunity to speak words of comfort and counsel into this woman’s life, which was much appreciated by her.

Southampton, 14 July:
As the crowds left the evening venue we found ourselves faced with thousands of people pouring out through the only exit, and we were able to give out leaflets at an incredible rate.

Southampton

Walthamstow, 21 July:
A man who came up to me with his wife, asked me what we were doing, read the leaflet and then asked me if I would pray for them that they would have a child. This I did at their request right there in the street. In all we distributed about 1800 leaflets which was quite good considering that we were limited to handing them out some hours before the torch arrived.

Final comments
What an amazing opportunity the 70 day journey of the Olympic Torch across the UK gave us to get the pro-life message out to hundreds of thousands of people in a very short time. In all, 140,000 Olympic leaflets were ordered by individuals and SPUC branches to distribute during the 70 days. Of those, approximately 30,000 were distributed directly into the hands of the public by the 12 torch-relay teams in the 12 cities we visited. This shows that, although the visual presence of a team at each city was what the public and media saw, behind the scenes pro-lifers were faithfully supporting the campaign by sacrificing their time to distribute leaflets in their own communities. We do believe that God will bring much fruit from this campaign. I think the one thing that encouraged us more than any other was to see so many supporters really fired up by simply going into the midst of crowds of people and being able to communicate the pro-life message in such a clear and challenging way.

Friday, 10 August 2012

Further to my blog-post yesterday on letters about the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) in the 3 August edition of The Catholic Herald, this weekend's edition (10 August) contains a letter (full text below) from a doctor who argues that:

"patients might well have had weeks or even many months more of life had they been properly supported rather than put on the LCP."

Letters, The Catholic Herald, 10 August 2012

From Dr R J Clearkin

SIR – Quentin de la Bédoyère (Science and Faith, July 27) mis-states the concerns that many physicians have with the Liverpool Care Pathway. It might be helpful to consider a few of these concerns.

The question has never been whether the LCP offers a “peaceful” death. After all, euthanised patients can die peacefully. The issue has always been whether patients are dying prematurely by being put on the LCP. While the LCP claims it is for those in the “last few hours or days of life”, it is essential to realise that there is no accurate way of determining this, so that for most patients it is at best a guess with large margins of error. This is particularly true for the two thirds of patients who do not die of cancer. Such patients might well have had weeks or even many months more of life had they been properly supported rather than put on the LCP. The article makes reassuring noises about audits but fails to explain that the audits are conducted by the very body which developed and still fervently promotes the LCP. Unsurprisingly, these audits fail to critically address such vital areas as patient selection and use of the LCP in non-cancer patients. As other interested parties cannot access the raw data they are unable to audit the LCP themselves. Sadly, conflicts of interest are repeatedly encountered with the LCP and obstruct the close and necessary examination of a “pathway” which is literally a matter of life and death for tens of thousands of patients.

Count de la Bédoyère incorrectly claims that the LCP relies on the “principle of double effect”. But it has long been recognised that agents like morphine, employed correctly, do not shorten life. The same cannot be said of deliberate dehydration, which is almost always a means of accelerating death. Furthermore, many, even most, patients are not made aware of either their diagnosis or their selection for the LCP.

As for “spiritual care”, this, for most patients, is conspicuous by its absence.

Thursday, 9 August 2012

This past weekend's Catholic Herald contains two letters about the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP). You can read more about concerns about the LCP elsewhere on my blog (13 Dec. 2011; 2 Dec. 2011; 26 Mar. 2011; 3 Sep. 2009; 13 Aug. 2009). The first letter is from Professor Patrick Pullicino, who is professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Kent. The second letter is from Dr Gillian Craig, a campaigner and author against euthanasia. I reproduce both letters in full at the end below.

Interestingly, Professor Pullicino argues:

"[T]he diagnosis of being “within the last hours or days of life”, which is necessary for a person to be put on the LCP, has no scientific basis. This diagnosis is, in fact, a prediction and as such is likely to be in serious error about 50 per cent of the time."

Dr Craig warns that:

"[T]here is a very real danger that some who appear to be dying but have a treatable disorder will be put on the LCP with fatal results."

Letters, The Catholic Herald, 3 August 2012

The Liverpool Care Pathway is becoming a deadly machine

From Professor Patrick Pullicino

SIR – One worrying statistic about the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) that is not well known is that in both the First National Audit (2006/7) and the Second National Audit (2008/9) the mean time to death on the LCP was 33 hours. The fact that two large national audits two years apart came up with an identical mean time to death shows that effectively the LCP is a machine. Unless the LCP is quickly discontinued death occurs in less than two days, whether someone has terminal cancer or a potentially reversible condition such as pneumonia.

What is not mentioned in the Science and Faith column (July 27) is that the diagnosis of being “within the last hours or days of life”, which is necessary for a person to be put on the LCP, has no scientific basis. This diagnosis is, in fact, a prediction and as such is likely to be in serious error about 50 per cent of the time.

Although it is possible to discontinue the LCP if the patient improves, it becomes more difficult to detect changes in the underlying illness as a patient becomes more drowsy on the LCP.

Yours faithfully,
PATRICK PULLICINOBy email

From Dr Gillian Craig

SIR – It is right to warn people about the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP). Those who have produced warning cards have done the public a service. Your report (July 27) was helpful, as was that of Quentin de la Bédoyère (Science and Faith, July 27).

If all doctors were trained in the care of the elderly and had all the time in the world to discuss end-of-life care with patients and relatives there would be less cause for anxiety about the LCP. But given the current pressure on hospital beds and the number of frail, elderly people needing attention, there is a very real danger that some who appear to be dying but have a treatable disorder will be put on the LCP with fatal results.

Count de la Bédoyère mentioned some dangers of the LCP towards the end of his article. These are worth repeating lest they be overlooked:

Some medical staff may see death as a benefit for the patient or the NHS. It was suggested that death is sometimes hastened if the bed is needed for someone else.

Some healthcare staff will be too busy to follow the LCP protocol correctly.

Once on the LCP progress checks may be overlooked until the patient is dead.

Some doctors may not involve a multi-disciplinary team or seek advice before putting patients on to the LCP.

The importance of hydration was not mentioned in the Catholic Herald articles.

When palliative care first emerged as a speciality in 1987 the only patients who received hospice care were those with pain that was difficult to control or those with significant anxiety about the prospect of dying. All the rest were managed by their GPs in the community or by hospital staff if they were admitted to hospital. Surprisingly few old people needed the services of palliative carers in those days and most died peacefully without the need for sedation or morphine. Syringe drivers were never used on geriatric wards in those days. If medication was needed it was given orally or by injection.

Palliative care is in overdrive and patients are in danger. (For discussion see the American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care 2008; Vol 25: No 2.) The NHS is fast becoming a death service rather than a health service for the elderly. Attempts are being made to vet potential admissions and send the elderly home before they block a precious hospital bed. Those who are admitted and appear to be dying may be put on the LCP and die within a matter of days. People can no longer be sure that the elderly will be treated well, so great vigilance is needed. Many people suffer long-term distress after watching a loved one die on the LCP. It is surely time to review and reduce the role of palliative care in the NHS.

All these problems have followed the closure of far too many hospitals that cared for the elderly. We now have too few hospital beds to cope with the ageing population. Hospital facilities must be increased and care in the community improved as a matter of urgency, so that more people can remain at home until they die in peace.

Wednesday, 8 August 2012

The Welsh government has announced plans to introduce presumed consent for organ donation. They are calling it "deemed consent", in which people living in Wales for a period of six months or more will be opted-in automatically as organ donors. This will include prisoners, tourists, and students.

A consultation on the draft bill "Human Transplantation (Wales) Bill" opened on 18 June 2012, and closes on 10 September 2012. The consultation is open to everyone.

SPUC has produced a briefing and summary assisting pro-lifers to fill in the consultation.

I blogged about the dangers of presumed consent for organ donation in January 2008 when Gordon Brown, the former British prime minister, wanted the law on organ donation to allow presumed consent, and July 2008 when the Welsh Assembly rejected presumed consent for organ donation.

These measures could impact negatively on the seriously-ill and dying and their families, who may not be aware of medical controversies surrounding the determination of death which, if known to them, might make some reluctant to donate their organs. The evidence seems mixed about whether such a change would increase the number of organs available. Some countries with presumed consent systems do worse than the UK but some do better, suggesting that other factors may be more important.

There are many serious objections to the proposals that are not addressed at all (or only inadequately) in setting out these proposals; most importantly the question of whether so-called ‘brain-death’ or ‘brain stem death’ is actual death. As David W Evans MD, FRCP has noted:

“the basis upon which a mortally sick patient is declared “deceased” – for the purpose of acquiring his or her organs for transplantation without legal difficulties – is very different from the basis upon which death is ordinarily diagnosed and certified and that highly relevant fact is not fully and generally understood.”

The proposals ignore the facts concerning this area of scientific dispute, yet this is a question with enormous ethical implications. Most organ donors are unaware that their hearts may be beating when their organs are taken, and that they may be pink, warm, able to heal wounds, fight infections, respond to stimuli, etc.

They are also unaware of common practices of paralysing and (sometimes) anaesthetising supposedly brain-dead donors before their organs are taken.

Simply signing a donor card does not in any way indicate that the prospective consenting donor understands what will be involved, and those who are merely ‘presumed to consent’ are likely to know even less.

In other medical contexts, informed consent is the gold standard. So it really must be asked why in this particular setting informed consent is being set aside.

John Smeaton

About Me

I became involved in SPUC after graduating, when I established a branch in south London in 1974. I have worked full-time for SPUC for 39 years. I became chief executive of SPUC in the UK in 1996, having been general secretary since 1978. I was elected vice-president of International Right to Life Federation in 2005. At UN conferences in Cairo, Copenhagen, Beijing, Istanbul and Rome, I helped coordinate more than 150 pro-life/pro-family groups resulting in pro-life victories in Cairo, Istanbul and Rome. I was educated at Salesian College, London, before going to Oxford where I graduated in English Language and Literature. I qualified as a teacher, becoming head of English at a secondary school. I am married to Josephine. We have a grown-up family and we live in north London.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to SPUC's staff, supporters and advisers for their help to me in researching, writing and producing this blog.

Sign up for email alerts

Twitter @spucprolife

Images

I believe that I am allowed to use the images accompanying my blog and that they are licence- and royalty-free. However if the owner or the licensor disagrees, please contact me and I will remove it immediately.